DHRUB KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Gardanibagh P.S. case No. 151 of 1984, dated 27.6.84 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner under Ss. 121(A), 123(B), 109 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act. On 30th March, 1984 one Martin Tirki, Inspector of Police -cum -Officer -in -Charge was on duty inside the Bihar Vidhan Sabha which was in session at about 12.15 P.M. Martin Tirki heard a sound of explosion, rushed inside the hall of the House and found Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, Ganesh Prasad interrogating one man, namely, Arbind Kumar Singh, who had allegedly thrown the bomb inside the House. Arbind Kumar Singh had got access to the public gallery on the basis of a pass issued by one Shri Ramji Singh, M.L.A. Congress (I). Shri Arbind Kumar Singh described himself as Vice President of the District Committee of Rashtriya Sanjay Manch, Arrah. He had shouted several slogans from that gallery while the House was in session. He disclosed that he had done so to frighten the Government to decentralise the capital and to bring change in the social order. It was further stated by him that he had done it as decided by a meeting held in Arrah. The Hon'ble Speaker of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha convicted him for Contempt of House and forwarded him to the Police for prosecuting him under the other provisions of the criminal law in usual way. The Police submitted charge -sheet against the petitioner and thereafter cognizance was taken as referred to above.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision to throw a bomb within the House of Bihar Vidhan Sabha, while in session, had been taken at a meeting held in Arrah in which the petitioner was present but there is nothing to show that he had spoken anything or was a party to that decision. As such it cannot be said that he acted according to the decision of that meeting. It was further alleged that for a prosecution under Sec. 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, consent of the Central Government is a necessity under Sec. 7 of the said Explosive Substance Act 1908 which leads as follows: - -

(3.) As regards other offences the learned counsel relied on Sec. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is as follows: - -